Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
for "new york" magazine. norah o'donnell is my cohost on cbs this morning, correspondent for cbs news, mike murphy a columnness for "time" magazine. from washington, albert hunt, executive editor of bloomberg news. from denver john dickerson, cbs news' political director and political correspondent at and joining us also from denver katty kay of the bbc. i'm pleased to have all of them for this event we've all been waiting for. i go to al hubble. a simple question, who won, who lost, why. >> i don't know if that's simple but if i had to pick i would say governor romney won. he set the awe general de more than the president did. he affectively and aggressive attacked the president's record and did a pretty good job defending his own. ice going to have problems the next couple days on taxes however because he is proposing a $6 trillion tax cut and he hasn't said how he'll pay for it. but he still i thought did very well on most counts tonight. barack obama surprised me. i wouldn't call him he was passive tonight. he seemed to pull back a little bit on dodd-frank and preexisting con
president of the united states bill clinton in conversation with me and my colleague at cbs nora o'donnell. >> rose: do you think this election the president has said that change has to come from outside rather than in washington, that this election has the possibility of producing a change that will be able to overcome gridlock. >> i don't think it to the only has the possibility, i think it almost certainly will. and let me explain why. i think the president's going to win but let's assume governor romney won. if he wins, that almost certainly means the republicans will hold on to the house and it will be about 50/50 in the senate, more or less the way it is now. you can't filibuster a budget. it's the only thing that doesn't require 60 votes in the senate to pass o as opposed to 51. so a lot of the policymaking will be pushed into the budget and he'll just have to pick up one or two people on that. if you assume that he is going to do what he said he's going to do, i think a lot of his priorities will be enacted. and i think it will be bad on the budget side, as i said. includin
are hearing from some media that it was this past weekend. "the new york times" said it was last august. cbs news said it was last june. even when the count gets there is up for grabs, but what is more important, that speaks to the fact that the counting is not the point. the 2000 u.s. soldier is no more or less important than the first for the 17th or the 129th. what is left out of these accounts are the scores of thousands of afghan civilians that have been killed in this war. since the records began to be kept, which was not until 2007, we know 12,996 civilians have been counted by the u.s. these accounts arethe first six yearst even counted, including the massive carpet bombing of afghanistan that opened themilie years. war in 2001. so we are faced with this massive level of casualties giving rise to the kind of anger across society that is leading to these so-called insider killings. the u.s. military has acknowledged that only 25% of those killings actually have anything to do with a "taliban infiltrator." the vast majority they say they do not know but it seems to be personal animosit
, it is a rare event in our politics these days when something like the cbs poll and the cmn instant polls and the yen consensus is not divided along partisan lines. overwhelmingly people saw the president lost that not because they thought governor romney's tax plan adds up, not because they want to turn medicare into a voucher, it was purely, as far as i am concerned, style and confidence. > >> rose: when the governor says, you know, the rich will pay the same share they have been paying or more, he is right about that? >> well, that is very hard to answer. because he said that, he said that will be a defining principle of his tax plan but he also laid out a number of defining principles and he cannot rit matically, a rit matically define all of those principles. he can choose not to compromise on that and say under absolutely no circumstances will the shared tacks pay by the rich go down but he can't then also have the scale of ghuts rates that he wants, and so i think we just don't know whether that is the case. what we know is he has been very specific about a cut in rates that would
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)